Ambivalent sexism and the “do”s and “don’t”s of pregnancy: Examining attitudes toward proscriptions and the women who flout them.

Murphy, Amy O. and Sutton, Robbie M. and Douglas, Karen and McClellan, L.M.
(2011)
Ambivalent sexism and the “do”s and “don’t”s of pregnancy: Examining attitudes toward proscriptions and the women who flout them.
Personality and Individual Differences,
51
(7).
pp. 812-816.
ISSN 0191-8869.
(doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.031)
(The full text of this publication is not currently available from this repository. You may be able to access a copy if URLs are provided)

The full text of this publication is not currently available from this repository. You may be able to access a copy if URLs are provided.
(Contact us about this Publication)

Abstract

Pregnant women are subjected to popular and official advice to restrict their behaviour in ways that may not always be warranted by medical evidence. The present paper investigates the role of sexism in the proscriptive stance toward pregnancy. Consistent with expectations, both hostile and benevolent sexism were associated with endorsement of proscriptive rules such as “pregnant women should not take strenuous exercise” (Study 1, n =148). Also as predicted, hostile but not benevolent sexism was associated with punitive attitudes to pregnant women who flout proscriptions (Study 2, n = 124). In tandem with recent findings, the present results show that hostile as well as benevolent sexism is associated with proscriptive attitudes surrounding
pregnancy.